Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
>
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
>> >> If your species doesn't define as unethical that which is contrary
>> to >> continuation of the species, your species won't be around to
>> long. >> Our problem is that cultural evolution has been so rapid
>> compared to >> biological evolution that some of our hardwired values
>> are not so good >> for continuation of our (and many other) species.
>> I don't think >> ethics is a matter of definitions; that's like
>> trying to fly by >> settling on a definition of "airplane". But
>> looking at the long run >> survival of the species might produce some
>> good ethical rules; >> particularly if we could predict the future
>> consequences clearly.
>> > > If slavery could be scientifically shown to promote the
>> well-being of > the species as a whole does that mean we should have
>> slavery? Does it > mean that slavery is good?
>> Note that I didn't say "promote the well-being"; I said "contrary to
>> the continuation". If the species could not continue without
>> slavery, then there are two possible futures. In one of them there's
>> a species that thinks slavery is OK - in the other there is no
>> opinion on the subject.
>
> OK, but it is possible to have an ethical system contrary to the
> continuation of the species as well. There are probably peopel in the
> world today who think that humans should deliberately stop breeding
> and die out because their continued existence is detrimental to the
> survival of other species on the planet. If you point out to them that
> such a policy is contrary to evolution (if "contrary to evolution" is
> possible) or whatever, they might agree with you, but still insist
> that quietly dying out is the good and noble thing to do. They have
> certain values with a certain end in mind, and their ethical system is
> perfectly reasonable in that context. That most of us consider it
> foolish and do not want to adopt it does not mean that there is a flaw
> in the logic or in the empirical facts.
> Words like "irrational" are sometimes used imprecisely. Someone who
> decides to jump off a tall building might be called irrational on the
> basis of that information alone. If he does it because he believes he
> is superman and able to fly then he is irrational: he is not superman
> and he will punge to his death. If he does it because he wants to kill
> himself then he is not irrational, because jumping off a tall enough
> building is a perfectly reasonable means towards this end.
Unless Quantum Mechanics is correct.
Unless the comp hyp. is correct. (OK this does not invalidate per se
your argumentation).
> We might try equally hard in each case to dissuade him from jumping,
> but the approach would be different because the underlying thought
> processes are different.
OK,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Dec 24 2006 - 10:17:14 PST